Posted 12:47 am Sunday, August 22, 2010
Good Letters Advance Discussion, Further Debate
What makes an effective letter to the editor -- and one more likely to be printed?
We receive dozens -- sometimes hundreds -- of letters each week. It's simply not possible to print them all.
So we have to be selective. Here's how that works.
Many letters we receive are "Astroturf," or artificially generated e-mails (sometimes with a local name attached) sent out to many papers at one time. These are easy to spot. We don't print them -- we want your opinion in your own words.
Some letters come from outside our readership area; while that doesn't automatically disqualify them, unless they're discussing an issue specific to East Texas, they don't go in.
That leaves the locally generated letters. We get plenty of those.
Which ones make the cut? To make those decisions, we have rules and principles.
The rules are pretty clear: Letters must be no longer than 250 words, and they must not be libelous, obscene or malicious. We limit the number of letters we'll print from a single writer in any given month (some writers send one or two letters per day).
All letters are subject to editing. If a writer sends something in, and demands it be printed without editing or not printed at all, the decision is automatic. We're sorry, but we can't make that promise to anyone. Even we get edited.
(True story: When I was at another paper, one lady called and said I couldn't edit her letter because "that's how God gave it to me." I had to explain, as nicely as I could, that an omniscient being probably would use complete sentences.)
For the most part, letters are edited for grammar, clarity, civility and length. But they also can be edited for content, and that's where we get into the principles.
First, it's our responsibility to print facts -- and not print or promulgate misinformation. I do extensive fact-checking on letters that make specific claims. For example, if a letter cites a percentage of people who don't like the cap-and-trade bill, I'll check the polls to be sure the number is right. If it quotes a public official, I will verify the quote.
Misinformation -- even unverifiable information -- is the reason many letters don't get printed. During the health care debates, we received many that claimed Britons older than a certain age are refused certain treatments. In fact, Great Britain's National Health Service has no such guidelines. Other examples include letters demanding President Barack Obama's birth certificate, claims he took the oath of office on the Koran and, more recently, claims that U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert doesn't believe Obama is a U.S. citizen (he's never taken that position).
We also don't print letters to politicians -- even "open letters." One writer called me to point out The Washington Post had recently printed a full-page "open letter" to Congress from the National Rifle Association. I explained the NRA bought that space. Letters should be addressed to the editor of the Tyler Paper, not to Smith County commissioners or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Letters that over-generalize about specific populations won't make the cut, either.
The real goal of the letters column isn't just to let people blow off steam in a very public manner. It's to advance the discussion. That's why letters should be about policies, not about people -- with the exception of personal endorsements in election season, and even then, we're going to be very careful.
Ad hominem attacks are not useful in advancing the discussion, so they don't get printed. Simply attacking a politician personally -- ranting about Gov. Rick Perry, for example -- and not discussing specific policies or plans or positions, isn't going to get a letter published.
Also, many letters go beyond commenting on actions, to speculating on motives. That's dangerous ground, because I don't know what's in Barack Obama's heart, and neither does anyone else. Letters that claim he's out to destroy America won't make the cut -- not because of ideology, but because that's an unsupportable claim.
Sarcasm and satire usually don't work in a letter simply because many readers won't get it.
The most effective letter makes a single point, expressing an opinion on a single topic strongly. If it makes any claim, it supports that claim with either factual examples or logic. It states the writer's position without rancor.
At best, it appeals to the undecided -- isn't that the letter writer's intent, anyway, to influence opinion?
Of course, many who hear the mantra about the "mainstream media bias" are going to believe letters are selected based on ideology. We've been accused of that by those on both the left and the right. Nothing I can say here will change those minds.
But I am always happy to talk with a letter-writer. Call me. If your letter wasn't printed, we can discuss the reasons, and I'll try to work with you on making it print-ready.
Roy Maynard is editorial page editor of the Tyler Courier-Times--Telegraph.
